Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD: Logic is at least ternary, not binary. (Meaning three st

    DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD:

    Logic is at least ternary, not binary. (Meaning three states, not two)

    …………… FALSE…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE

    FALSE…..FALSE…….FALSE……UNDECIDABLE

    TRUE……FALES…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE

    UNDEC…FALSE…….UNDEC…..UNDECIDABLE

    MATHEMATICS

    In mathematics, which for millennia was unfortunately the gold standard of logic, we use the word true when we mean either “balanced” (retaining constant relations), or we mean “proven” (possible to demonstrate), because in mathematics we create proofs of possibility rather than statements of truth. We may claim that we speak truthfully that we have constructed a proof. But mathematics consists of operations, deductions, inferences and guesswork, by which we identify means of demonstrating the possibility and necessity of a series of constant relations (ratios).

    COMPUTER SCIENCE

    In the gold standard of reasoning: computer science – when we refer to values, we call this same sequence true, false, and null (unknown). So in computer science, we either possess sufficient information to state something is provable (true or false), or unprovable (false), or undecidable (lacking the information).

    FORMAL LOGIC

    ( I’ll avoid formal logic because in my view, like all game theory, beyond use in very simple human perceivable scales, it’s been a waste of a century. I mean. I can dismantle the liars paradox in five minutes or less. it was a wasted century.

    PHYSICAL SCIENCE

    In sciences we use the terms False, Possibly True (an hypothesis, theory, or law), and Undecidable. Between the choice of true and false, it is false that we know with certainty. Truth always remains uncertain in all but the most simple of questions.

    EPISTEMOLOGY

    In epistemology we say something is knowingly false, possibly true, and undecidable, or unknown. In epistemology, just as in science, we must determine if an argument survives attempts to falsify it. If it is true, then we can decide if it is possible. I it is possible then we can decide if it is preferable. If it is preferable without causing harm to others, then we have determined that it is good.

    MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY, AND THEOLOGY

    In morality, philosophy, theology, we say (lie) that if we can find an excuse for something (a justification) it is true, or moral, or good. When that only means that according to the established norms, scriptures, and laws. in other words, one is free of blame if he can justify his actions as permissible, moral or good. In morality philosophy and theology, we attempt to survive justification.

    LAW

    When we encounter LAW we use the jury, and debate between two parties, and moderated by a judge, to test both whether we are justified under law, and whether our testimony and our arguments are believable. In law we attempt to survive the battle between three forces: the law as written, the standards of rational behavior of the jury, the logical testing of your statements by the judge, and the subjective testing of your truthfulness by the jury. And in case you don’t know this, most cases are decided by the test of truthfulness, which is why american courts are so useful for commerce. The first sin of american law is failure of informational reciprocity. Failure and error are forgivable. Violation of reciprocity is not.

    HIERARCHY OF CERTAINTY

    … FALSE, that which does not survive tests of falsification.

    … … TRUE, that which survives all tests of falsification

    … … … PROVEN, that which survives tests of possibility.

    … … … … UNDECIDABLE that which cannot be decided.

    THE TRUTH TABLE OF CERTAINTY

    F:False, T:True, P:Provable, U:Undecidable

    …..F…..T…..P…..U

    F…F…..F…..F…..U

    T…F….*T*…P…..U

    P…F…..P…..P…..U

    U..F…..U….U…..U

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 12:13:00 UTC

  • FIRST TO GET THIS OFF THE TABLE —“I wish I could assume that you are acting in

    FIRST TO GET THIS OFF THE TABLE

    —“I wish I could assume that you are acting in good faith”—

    Well I will tell you how I DO NOT act in good faith:

    I dont have a classroom to experiment on students. I don’t have a research budget, and I dont have graduate students (indentured labor) to conduct experiments for me. What I do have is access to a very inexpensive medium for experimenting with arguments.

    In my process of inquiry, I work very hard to construct conditions under which I can obtain what I consider honest or truthful information, vs reported information.

    I work very had to understand how and why people hold positions, and to test my theories against those positions. So all my arguments are tests. I iterate these tests about ten times before they seem to be fairly good, and then over the next few years refine them until I can state them as aphorisms or series, or something incredibly dense – effectively as verbal proofs. I construct proofs.

    This work requires that I ‘get inside the heads’ of the people who hold these positions, and then reduce those positions to a series of testable criteria (incentives) regardless of position.

    And since I am a philosopher of science, and a falsificationist, I do this by attacking ideas until I see if and how they survive – or not. So I investigated sovereign monarchism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, anarcho capitalism, neoreaction, and now the ‘nazis’ with sympathy to understand them then I attack those ideas to falsify them. And what remains is a set of ‘goods and bads’ from each model.

    In other words, in some ways, because I treat everyone I interact with in business and intellectual life, as a participant in an experiment, I am continually operating under conditions that you might consider disingenuous in the moment but profoundly moral in the end result.

    I learned most of this technique negotiating (i have bought a lot of companies, closed a lot of deals, and done deals that were meritous and some I regret today as immoral. But I see my chief problem in negotiation, simply living in a world full of relative upper class scoundrels, educated imbeciles and underclass zombies, and a middle and working class that appears to consist of the only moral people extant in western society, and they are the ones that least benefit from the current order – because they are being exterminated by it.)

    Now, there are a good number of people who follow me that know exactly what I am doing. And I think it is this form of cunning they appreciate almost as much as the output of my work. But in my world I am literally nothing more than a scientist using verbal experiments to investigate the human mind so that I can construct a body of law that will reverse the beneficiaries of the western order, and restore tehm to the middle and working classes, and save my people and our priceless civilization in doing so.

    So if that ‘disenginuity’ makes me immoral somehow in your world because I am ‘using’ people, when they are voluntarily engaging in these discussions, and I have to do nothing more than stand on the top of the hill and say I’m the king in order to get them to play this very elaborate verbal game, then I think you practice a woman’s morality, rather than a man’s. I take responsibiilty for not only myself, but for my people and for mankind, and I do so by asking people to play a game with me that they wilingly play, are entertained by, and learn from.

    Frankly, if I didn’t have so much respect for you I wouldn’t say this but I know you are a moral man. What actually bothers me is that in my view the cost of dealing with all these shitty selfish people in all these ridiculous niches of political masturbation tires the hell out of me. But just as we must go live among the animals to understand them, and bear the costs and risks of doing so, I must do the same with every shitty immoral, selfish, justificationary, eddy of the human political tidal pool.

    That is the truth as I am most capable at the moment of speaking it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 09:24:00 UTC

  • For those of us who can, to call upon our gods, before we loose our wrath, is to

    For those of us who can, to call upon our gods, before we loose our wrath, is to name the sacrifice we deliver unto them on behalf of our people – whether it be the souls of those we kill, or our own. We shout to the universe that the sacrifices we lay before us, are those that have purpose greater than us. And thus such sacrifice is worthy and not wasteful of the gifts our gods have prepared for us. We speak with passion and poetry, but unlike mere talkers, at great cost.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 16:47:00 UTC

  • DIRECT ECONOMIC (EMPIRICAL) DEMOCRACY If we are to use representatives at all, t

    DIRECT ECONOMIC (EMPIRICAL) DEMOCRACY

    If we are to use representatives at all, they should be chosen by lot for a single year, and held accountable for their actions by rule of law.

    As far as I can tell, direct economic democracy either by proportion or by equal share, where one’s votes may NOT be proxied, will produce (a) the most educated and aware population, and (b) the least corrupt government, as long as (c) all statements must be ‘scientifically’ truthful by the terms i’ve defined elsewhere.

    The dominance of single houses independent of classes the dominance of parties, the use of representatives, and the cheapness of lobbying representatives rather than the voters, are all malincentives.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 14:14:00 UTC

  • All of the world’s canons include wisdom, and within that wisdom are statements

    All of the world’s canons include wisdom, and within that wisdom are statements that are useful and will achieve proposed ends – at least loosely.

    But few of the worlds statements of wisdom are stated in deflationary truth, and the vast majority are stated with conflationary falsehoods.

    There are some words of wisdom that are stated truthfully, but not all statements of wisdom are stated either truthfully, nor are they true, and some are harmful, and some are outright lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 10:28:00 UTC

  • DO WE NEED THE UNDERCLASSES TO FIGHT FOR US? NO. What is the IQ cutoff for enlis

    DO WE NEED THE UNDERCLASSES TO FIGHT FOR US? NO.

    What is the IQ cutoff for enlisted men (the troops) in the US military service?

    THIS IS GOING TO UPSET YOU THE AVERAGE IQ IS: 106. MEANING THE 65TH PERCENTILE. MEANING THE (GENETIC) WORKING AND MIDDLE CLASSES.

    So quite differently from what the underclass supposes, they are dead military weight as well as dead political weight, as well as dead economic weight as well as dead social weight. As far as I can tell, below 95, you’re dead weight on humanity, and any value you have in the military, political, economic, and social organizations of society is simply displacing the young and ignorant, and the old and tired from fulfilling work in the service of self and others.

    sure, it’s possible to do menial labor, and not be a problem, but basically below 95, everyone is dead weight. Why?

    95 to learn by (costly) repetition – and use machines and equipment.

    105 to learn by instruction – and to repair machines – and speak ideas clearly.

    115 (college) to learn by self reading

    125 (graduate) to learn by self investigation

    135 to interpret and distill information for others to learn by.

    145 to innovate purely in ideas.

    Honestly I can’t see a lot of difference over 145 in practical terms, because at that point it seems that your discipline, general knowledge, and time devoted to innovation are more influential than additional intelligence. (although I can be wrong). For example, i can tell that Hayek and I are similar in many ways, and I can tell that Chomsky and Wittgenstein have superior verbal abilities (substantially) – but they were both wrong. And when I read the works of other people I think are very bright It seems to me that they have more discipline than I do. (and less autism). So what does that mean?

    From what I can see, there is no reason why we could not breed up to 125 median without encountering consequences I do not yet know how to deal with. But my observation of english history and jewish history is that the closer you get to 115 median, the closer you get to social, economic, political, and military nirvana so to speak. I am not sure that without technological enhancements we do much better than that with homo sapiens sapiens.

    —“the military is the greatest middle class redistribution system in America”— (forget his name at the moment)

    VIA SAILER:

    —“Following the latest John Kerry brouhaha, a reader asked what the average IQ of U.S. military personnel is. From table 2.8 of the is Department of Defense document, I estimate that the average for new enlisted men in 1998 was about 105.

    This would be in the 60th to 65th percentile compared to all the young people in America when the Armed Forces Qualification Test was normalized in 1980 on the National Longitudinal Study of Youth’s sample of 13,000 people ages 15-23. (This is the same enormous study that provides the data in Section 2 of The Bell Curve.)”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 13:44:00 UTC

  • HUMAN “NATURAL TENDENCY” IS TO TAKE RATIONAL ACTION. We are moral when to our ad

    HUMAN “NATURAL TENDENCY” IS TO TAKE RATIONAL ACTION.

    We are moral when to our advantage, amoral when to our advantage and immoral when to our advantage.

    And while even the most simple of mathematical questions, and the most basic of logical demands can challenge us, we are masters of calculation of social status, and the change in it produced by our moral, amoral, and immoral actions.

    As population increases and density increases, our anonymity increases, and therefore our ability to obtain our wants amorally or immorally without costing us social status, increases.

    Ergo, In small groups with meaningful competition we see higher morality. As competition decreases we see increases in immorality. As anonymity increases through greater population we see greater increases in immorality.

    Hence our universal tendency to develop interpersonal and local reputations, normative habits traditions, and rules, religious habits, traditions, rules and limited records (births, christenings, marriages, deaths; legal habits, traditions rules and more informational records; insurance habits, traditions, rules and much more informational records (titles etc); and, credit habits, traditions, rules and vastly more informational records; and now ‘data’ based methods of incomprehensible records of our behaviors, wants, wishes, and biases.

    All of these forms of expectations of one another, and records of our actions function as do the rest of our tools – whether logical, legal, craftsmanly, technological, scientific – to allow us to perceive, remember, compare, and judge, that which we cannot judge without the assistance of those tools alone.

    But in the end, the human being does what he must: act rationally in his self interests without imposing such a cost on his social status (reputation) that he either reduces opportunities for cooperation with others, eliminates opportunities for cooperation with others, or is such a threat to the cooperation of others, or a threat to the life property kin, and opportunities of others, that he is ostracized, enslaved, imprisoned, or killed.

    Man is a rational actor. His reason may not be evident, because he calculates intuitively his physical, emotional, and intellectual costs, in addition to his costs of opportunity, and his costs of material resources. And unfortunately, physical underdevelopment, emotional underdevelopment, and intellectual underdevelopment for the context in which he lives are high costs for some to bear. And as such they are insufficiently domesticated an animal for participation in society except as ostracized, slave, prisoner – and sometimes his best participation is his death.

    Curt Doolittle

    The The Propertarian Institute,

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 11:51:00 UTC

  • The human mind is capable of offering a wide variety of cognitive biases with wh

    The human mind is capable of offering a wide variety of cognitive biases with which we can divide up the task of cognitively processing the universe’s information, and then using communication and voluntary exchange to make use of.

    We’re scary when you think about it.

    Think about the temporal horizon and distribution of information processing tasks in other creatures and their ADAPTABILITY, and then think of the temporal horizon and distribution of information processing tasks and our adaptability.

    wow.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-14 20:09:00 UTC

  • WASHINGTON STATE VIRTUE SIGNALING (a) washington until now has never experienced

    WASHINGTON STATE VIRTUE SIGNALING

    (a) washington until now has never experienced the problems of underclass immigratino, in no small part becuase i) like oregon, no black immigration, and ii) no labor immigration, only technical immigration.

    (b) virtue signaling because of accident is a form of deceit – a lie. Washington remained a paradise precisely because it never had to encounter the problems until now. I was just in Redmond. MIcrosoft will not persist. That’s just in the numbers. When it fails, Redmond will look like ROChESTER NY after the fall of Xerox/Kodak. And left leaning seattleites will get their dream: AN INCREASE IN THE DEMAND FOR AUTHORITARIANISM BECAUSE OF A DECREASE IN HOMOGENEITY OF CULTURE, ABILITY, AND INTERESTS.

    This is what separates the west from the east: eliminate the demand for authority, or increase the demand for authority. Europeans discovered government without rule. But since the socialist era, the underclass has been sold a present pseudoscientific religion of perpetual consumption, just as the ancient world’s underclass was sold a future supernatural religion of perpetual consumption in the afterlife.

    Lies for fun and profit. Burn the roman empire to the ground through immigration and invasion, and conversion via lies. Burn the Anglo-German empire to the ground through immigration, invasion, and conversion via lies.

    We can take the european route of profiting from rule that reduces the underclass and the demand for authority, or take the middle eastern route of profiting from rule that increases the underclass by increasing the demand for authority.

    Our european method produces egalitarian peers consisting of genetically middle class majority, and the middle eastern method produces majority underclass of competing tribes the rule of which requires authority.

    So choose an america of Castes that looks like India today, and Brazil in the making – or choose a europe made of many small homogenous middle class polities, consisting of equalitarian peers.

    There is no method by which we can make the underclass otherwise. It is the scale of the underclass the determines the possible methods of rule.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-14 15:37:00 UTC

  • Aristotle invented what we call science today:” the elimination of imaginary inf

    Aristotle invented what we call science today:” the elimination of imaginary information from our statements of observation.”

    It took through the Machiavelli to develop it in social science. It took until Bacon to develop it in general use. It took until darwin and maxwell to remove most of the remaining uses. I’m just removing it from psychology, sociology, group evolutionary strategy, and law. The problem for most thinkers in the past was the conflation of mathematics and platonism, and the conflation of reason and supernaturalism. Once deflated we are left with states, transformations, and the operations required to conduct those transformations: recipes. All else is some version of history, literature, and mythology. The reason we require myth, literature, and history, is because it takes very little cognitive power or knowledge to understand myth (cartoonish hyperbole for the purpose of reducing experience), literature (analogy to experience), and history (reduction of complexity beyond direct experience).

    It doesn’t matter what similar errors they made – they were men of their time. it matters that between Augustine, Plato, and Aristotle, we obtained theological, platonic, and scientific traditions, which roughly match the cognitive abilities of our classes. We can easily categorize all thought as deflationary and true, conflationary and analogical, or conflationary and false (deceptive).

    What matters is that one cannot argue truthfully only meaningfully across them, and decidability is ALWAYS provided by the scientific.

    So, we have decidabile and true on one end, meainginful and allegorical in the middle, and deceitful and supernatural on the opposite end.

    Decidable/True — Meaningful/Allegorical — Deceitful/False

    deduciblity —————- inference —————– misdirection

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-13 13:22:00 UTC